Author
Topic: Yeah! I thought so. (Read 8263 times)

On Sept. 17, 1787, after a long summer of argument and compromise, the Founders completed and signed what would become the U.S. Constitution. And despite popular misconception, it didn't include a word about the USA being a "Christian nation."

In fact, the Constitution doesn't mention Christianity, or God, at all. It is a secular document outlining the structure of what would become the new government of this nation.

Likewise, the First Amendment to the Constitution, which protects every individual's right to practice his or her own religion â€” bans government "establishment" or direct support of religion â€” makes no mention of Christianity.

Yet, 220 years later, an astonishing 55% of respondents to a poll released last week said they believe the Constitution "establishes a Christian nation."

More disturbing than the mistaken assumption of special status for one religion is a broader pattern evident in this poll, taken by a respected survey research firm for the First Amendment Center. The poll shows widespread ignorance of basic freedoms and a belief that many of the Constitution's rights apply only to some Americans, not to all:

â€¢

* 98% said the right to speak freely about whatever you want is essential or important. But 39% would muzzle public statements that might be offensive to religious groups, 42% would bar musicians from singing songs others might find offensive, 56% would outlaw public statements that might be offensive to racial groups, and 74% would prohibit public school students from wearing a T-shirt that others might find offensive.

â€¢

* 97% said the right to practice the religion of your choice is essential or important, but only 56% said freedom of religion applies to all religious groups.

â€¢

* 93% said the right to be informed by a free press is essential or important. But 37% would not allow newspapers to freely criticize U.S. military strategy or performance; 61% would impose government requirements on balancing conservative and liberal commentary in newspapers.

Just as the Founding Fathers didn't apply freedom of religion just to Christians, neither did they limit freedom of speech, freedom of the press or freedom of assembly just to those who behave politely or avoid offense. How could it be otherwise? If freedom of religion means anything, it must apply equally to minority religions. And if freedoms of speech, press and assembly mean anything, they must apply to all â€” most particularly those whose views might not be in the current mainstream.

In a democracy, if freedom is not available to all, then no one is truly free.

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

unfortunately, they don't teach that stuff in school anymore, and parents don't seem to think it's very important.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Problem is every public (read state run) school has become so dependent on federal and state money they are forced to teach what ever comes down from on high, and who ever controls on high (usually those who scream the loudest). I remember learning about the constitution in fourth grade and very much more depth in junior and senior high. My kids are learning it at home as well as strting them on the Federalist Papers. I don't sugar coat anything, but I do teach them that we are a constantly growing country and that change for the sake of change is not a good thing.

I better stop before I get going.

Logged

Everyone said it couldn't be done. But he with a chuckle replied, "I won't be one to say it is so, until I give it a try." So he buckled right in with a trace of a grin. If he had a worry he hid it and he started to sing as he tackled that thing that couldn't be done, and he did it. (unknown)

The point I was commenting on..... "Yeah! I thought so." ........ is how many people do not believe freedom is for everyone, just a chosen few. That is why we deprive people of their freedoms.... Just because someone didn't like what they said or did.

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

the constitution does 3 things. 1. lists the duties of the federal government 2. lists the freedoms of the people 3. lists the LIMITATIONS of the federal government. everything not listed in the constitution is left to the states. according to the constitution, Georgia could decided it wanted to become the baptist state of Georgia. NY could become the muslim state of NY. they could base their state constitutions on those beliefs as long as they did not force people to worship in a certain way, or did not keep people from worshiping as they saw fit. Utah could reinstate polygamy if it wanted to.

as qa33010 points out, states have become so dependent on federal money, that they have abdicated their power in favor of the federal dollar. this gives federal idiots like the department of education, power over them to dictate what they can and can't teach. they also have become so fearful of organizations like the NEA and the ACLU that they will not do anything to upset them. they do not teach the constitution. they certainly do not teach the federalist papers! how can people know what is in the constitution unless they have the desire to study for themselves?

the constitution does not mention Christianity. however, there can be no doubt that the founders wrote it based on Christian principles. they intentionally did not include a state church because they wanted a government run apart from the church, or any large central power. there can be no doubt, when you read the papers of the founders, that they intended a Christian nation. why? because they believed that the principles of Christianity gave the best and most enduring personal freedom....the freedom of choice.

if TJ's letter to the Danbury baptists had been taken in context, it is hard to see how the supremes could have come to the ruling about separation of church and state. their ruling is a defacto change in the Constitution and i would like to see it revisited.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

actually....no it's not. i have not seen any atheists deported. this person has a right to her opinion, uninformed as it is. she should be angry at those who pander to atheists and change things legislatively that the general population would not otherwise support. a minority is entitled to their opinion. they are not entitled to force their belief (or lack of belief) system off on others.

they could create their own state!! ;)

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

By "That's the way it is" I mean how a lot of people, just like that lady, don't believe others have rights. Some how they mess it all up in their head, just as she did, and there fore eliminates others rights.

Good example is the 2nd Amendment. Is it the people of the whole country, or just the ones in the militia, that get to keep and bear arms? Some say only the militia.... and then they eliminate those folks because we now have the national guard :roll:

Logged

:rainbowflower: Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak. :rainbowflower:

If I remember right militia is a citizen that is called up or volunteers to fight an enemy of "the state" with minimal or almost nonexistent training. They are not nor have they been professional service men or women. Our armed forces active, guard and reserve are the best trained and chose to be professional military. This thought is only half there and incomplete but I lost my train of thought.

Understudy... That's just plain scary and hilarious. I'm passing that one on.

Logged

Everyone said it couldn't be done. But he with a chuckle replied, "I won't be one to say it is so, until I give it a try." So he buckled right in with a trace of a grin. If he had a worry he hid it and he started to sing as he tackled that thing that couldn't be done, and he did it. (unknown)

Oh, please, let's not go over the Second Amendment again. The People means the same thing in the Second as it means in all of the other amendments. It's you and me and anyone else. Any other way of reading it is nothing but revisionist thinking the loony left is trying desperately to use to take away our right to defend ourselves. From GOA Fact Sheet:

Quote

F. Myth #6: The Second Amendment militia is the National Guard.

The Founding Fathers made it clear that the Militia was composed of the populace at large. Both the Congress and Supreme Court have affirmed this definition of the Militia.

1. Founding Fathers

* George Mason: "I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."184

* Virginia Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 13 (1776): "That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty. . . ."

* Richard Henry Lee: "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them . . . . The mind that aims at a select militia [like the National Guard], must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."185

instead of teaching our children how to defend their country, we now teach them that our country is not worth defending.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

The federalist papers were drafted as Hamiltons personal viewpoints that he was advocating to NY so they would ratify the constitition. There other numerous viewpoints from our founders, but the federalist are perhaps the best known. Nontheless, they are lettrs of advocacy. They are what Hamilton though the consitition should be. The constitution was and is a compromise. Some of Hamiltons ideas were included, others not. The founders included many ideals, but ultimatley, they needed to get it passed. The articles of conferdaration preceded the constition and contained only the powers of declaring/waging war and setting peace conditioons if I recall correctly. They were a catastrophe as the gov't was incapable of acomplishing anything. The constitition wasn't a foundation for christian principles but generally recognized principles contained within the magna carta. Are they an outgrowth of judeo/christian ideals, yes. To suggest our founders wanted a country founded principally on christian ideals would be innacccurate.

Logged

"The more complex the Mind, the Greater the need for the simplicity of Play".

the federalist papers were written by others also. these writings, along with the writings of other founders are important to understand intent.

the founders not only intend to have a nation based on christian principles, but they intended a christian nation. why? because the basics of freedom, equality, and accountability, are biblical teachings. one big reason the catholic church didn't want people to actually read the thing. when they did, they found that their salvation was not in the church. bummer for the catholic church.

John Adams:â€œ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianityâ€¦ I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.â€ â€œ[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.â€

Samuel Adams: â€œ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deityâ€¦ and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.â€ [October 4, 1790]

John Quincy Adams:â€¢ â€œWhy is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" â€œIs it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence | Portrait of Charles Carroll" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments." [Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]

Benjamin Franklin: | Portrait of Ben Franklinâ€œ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babelâ€ â€“Constitutional Convention of 1787 | original manuscript of this speech

â€œIn the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answeredâ€¦ do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?â€ [Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

i have heard ben franklin called an atheist. doesn't sound like one. i have lots more of these, but you get the idea. we don't teach this because of the mistaken rulings of the supremes and the advocacy by the ACLU on the part of those who want knowledge withheld.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

E pluribus unum is the motto for the United States. It was on coins until 1956 and was replaced with In God we Trust as a response to the godless communist threat of the day.

From The Christian Nation Myth

by Farrell Till

Such a view of American history is completely contrary to known facts. The primary leaders of the so-called founding fathers of our nation were not Bible-believing Christians; they were deists. Deism was a philosophical belief that was widely accepted by the colonial intelligentsia at the time of the American Revolution. Its major tenets included belief in human reason as a reliable means of solving social and political problems and belief in a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. The supreme God of the Deists removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it. They believed that he assumed no control over it, exerted no influence on natural phenomena, and gave no supernatural revelation to man. A necessary consequence of these beliefs was a rejection of many doctrines central to the Christian religion. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, divinity, or resurrection of Jesus, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible.

These beliefs were forcefully articulated by Thomas Paine in Age of Reason, a book that so outraged his contemporaries that he died rejected and despised by the nation that had once revered him as "the father of the American Revolution." To this day, many mistakenly consider him an atheist, even though he was an out spoken defender of the Deistic view of God. Other important founding fathers who espoused Deism were George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

.....Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric. In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said, "In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes" (George Seldes, The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey Citadel Press, 1983, p. 371).

In a letter to Mrs. Harrison Smith, he wrote, "It is in our lives, and not from our words, that our religion must be read. By the same test the world must judge me. But this does not satisfy the priesthood. They must have a positive, a declared assent to all their interested absurdities. My opinion is that there would never have been an infidel, if there had never been a priest" (August 6, 1816).

After Jefferson became president, he did not compromise his beliefs. As president, he refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations, a fact that Justice Souter referred to in his concurring opinion with the majority in Lee vs. Weisman, the recent supreme-court decision that ruled prayers at graduation ceremonies unconstitutional.

James Madison, Jefferson's close friend and political ally, was just as vigorously opposed to religious intrusions into civil affairs as Jefferson was. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.

Realizing that whatever legislation an elected assembly passed can be later repealed, Jefferson ended the statute with a statement of contempt for any legislative body that would be so presumptuous "And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right" (emphasis added).

Clearly, the founders of our nation intended government to maintain a neutral posture in matters of religion. Anyone who would still insist that the intention of the founding fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." (Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365). This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof." This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U. S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do very little to support the popular notion that the founding fathers established our country as a "Christian nation."

My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting [Protestant] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough deist.- Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, 1793

Sincerely,Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible

brendhan.....farrell till? really? that might not be as good a source as the actual beliefs of the founder. would you take his advice on diet and animal care?? :-)

I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |

â€œGod who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.â€ [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781]

TJ was not a fan of organized religion. he did not want to see power in the hands of a church. in fact, he didn't want to see power in much of anyones hands. his writings on judicial power and the constitution are another good example of his attitude. TJ did consider himself a christian in the biblical sense, rather than the church going sense. he also was a regular in church.

anyone can take certain writings and strip out bits to make a point. it is the whole of the writings that are important, as well as the known actions of the founders. the Danbury Letter is a good example of what happens when you take a bit out of context and use it to support judicial activism.

christianity is not a church. it is a set of principles for life and faith. the founders wanted to preserve and promote in this nation the principles of christianity, as the basis for freedom.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

brendhan.....farrell till? really? that might not be as good a source as the actual beliefs of the founder. would you take his advice on diet and animal care?? :-)

No I wouldn't that doesn't make him wrong on this.

Quote

I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson

He is comparing the bible to philosophy not the making of a christian nation.

Quote

"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817] |

Nothing I see there says this is a christian nation. He uses the word religion, not christianity.

Quote

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” [Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781][/i]

TJ was not a fan of organized religion. he did not want to see power in the hands of a church. in fact, he didn't want to see power in much of anyones hands. his writings on judicial power and the constitution are another good example of his attitude. TJ did consider himself a christian in the biblical sense, rather than the church going sense. he also was a regular in church.

That doesn't mean he wanted a christian nation. Again read the Treaty of Tripoli. Christian, Buddist, and Jewish philosophies are all basically the same. TJ wrote his own versions of the New Testament removing most of the miracles in them. Attending church does not mean he wanted a christian nation. Jefferson attended a Unitarian church. A radical fringe at the least.

Quote

anyone can take certain writings and strip out bits to make a point. it is the whole of the writings that are important, as well as the known actions of the founders. the Danbury Letter is a good example of what happens when you take a bit out of context and use it to support judicial activism.

christianity is not a church. it is a set of principles for life and faith. the founders wanted to preserve and promote in this nation the principles of christianity, as the basis for freedom.

Yeah the wall of seperation is just so out of context. (sarcasm)The danbury letter clearly makes sure that church and state are seperate.Don't forget it wasn't just Thomas Jefferson, But many of the founding fathers that did not want a christian nation. They did believe in God but not all of them believed in a Christian God. Diests made very sure they were seperate from orthodox Christians. Saying one believes in God does not automatically make them christian. Nor did it with the founding fathers.

This country is founded on religous freedoms not Christian freedoms. Including a freedom to not believe in god. And to not have Christian beliefs forced down your throat.

Sincerely,Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible

the interpretation by the supremes is not supported by the words of the constitution, intent of the founders, OR the danbury letter.

most of the rest of what you wrote if correct, but your conclusions are incorrect. the founding fathers clearly identified themselves as christians. they did not necessarily identify themselves with a particular church. in their own words they stated their intentions. if they did not all state the intent to form a christian nation, they did state the intent to create a nation based on judaeo-christian principles.

they also recognized the potential power of A church gaining to much influence in government and daily life. thus the "free exercise there of" part of the clause. yes, you can make the choice to worship as you see fit, or to not worship at all. both old and new testament teachings are about choice. your right to be an atheist is a christian principle :-).

you rightly point out that there are several religions that support the same freedoms. that is precisely why totalitarian regimes make it one of their first orders of business to destroy religion when they come into power. you can not serve god and a repressive regime. their goals are at odds.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Again there is nothing in that statement about a Christian nation.

The founding fathers may have ideals that seem christian but they did not want a Christian nation. I have shown that several times already.

The United States is not a christian nation.

Sincerely,Brendhan

Logged

The status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to rule it. Dr. Horrible